Hukay vol. 2 no. 1 SOUTHEAST ASIAN PREHISTORY IN RELATION TO † THE PHILIPPINES ‡ Wilhelm G. Solheim II, Ph.D. TO SCOTTY This being the first of a proposed series of memorial lectures in memory of William Henry Scott I would like to start my talk with a bit of information on my relationship with “Scotty”. I do not have the date here to be certain of my first meeting with Scotty, but I do remember enough to say that it was either his first day or his second day after arrival in Sagada. This was not planned. I was on my way to Ifugao and decided to stop over in Sagada to look up an elderly ethnographer who was said to be living in Sagada. I did not find him, but Scotty and I found each other. We became immediate friends, I might even say “close friends” though we seldom had time together. This was because it was near the end of my first stay in the Philippines and when I was here on further short or longer trips I was usually working towards the south and/or west rather than in Manila or to the north in and out of Vigan and we seldom had time together. He presumably had little personal knowledge of the Philippines, or possibly even of his job responsibilities, as yet but he committed himself to things I doubted he could fulfill. He told me that he had no plan or desire to become an academic, to work for any advance degrees, or to do any research on his own, but that he did want to help others with their research programs in the Mountain Province. He seemed to be sure that he would be able to travel there. He said that if a request were to put him for information from any portion of the Mountain Province, he would, in a relatively short time, be able to go there and come up with the data needed. I put him to a test fairly soon thereafter. I had become interested in the current methods of pottery manufacture of the different ethnic groups in the Philippines. Though H. Otley Beyer, with whom I had been studying, had lived and worked for a considerable time in Ifugao he did not have detailed information on Ifugao pottery manufacture. I asked Scotty if he could get data on Ifugao pottery manufacture and included a questionnaire so that I could have the information I wanted. He replied quickly that this would be no problem. I don’t recall how soon thereafter it was that I received the requested information from him, but it was not a matter of years but only a few months. Right away his data created a bit of a bombshell. It turned out that there were two very different methods of pottery manufacture in use in Ifugao. Almost everywhere in Southeast Asia it is only the women who are the traditional potters. He discovered that in a portion of Ifugao the women were the potters, using relatively expected methods of paddle-and-anvil manufacture. The bombshell was that in another portion of Ifugao it was the men who were the potters and their basic method was coiling, which had been previously unknown in the Philippines and both male potters and coiling were extremely rare anywhere in Southeast Asia (Solheim and Shuler 1963). Later I discovered that there was one, small, ethnic group in Taiwan with male potters who used the coiling method of manufacture. Later still I accidentally discovered that there was at least one small ethnic group in Kyushu, Japan where the males were the potters, using coiling for manufacture. Latter still I made a study on the distribution of methods of pottery manufacture in eastern Asia and the Pacific (Solheim 1964a and 1968). My statistical analysis of these methods suggested clearly that the use of coiling in manufacture had come into Melanesia - the islands relatively close to and east of New Guinea - probably from Japan. This movement would have come south either through the western Micronesian islands or along the eastern sides of Taiwan and the Philippines, or both. Thus Scotty’s first task that he completed for me became involved in several different facets of my later research. ‡ Visiting Professor at the Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines, Diliman. November 1999 49 Hukay vol. 2 no. 1 I was very pleased latter when I found out that he had changed his mind about becoming involved in academic research. In spite of his doing his own research on the early history and late prehistory of the Philippines he still took time out to answer the rather few questions I sent him latter. Also at times we both asked the other for opinions and suggestions on specific points in our own research. Scotty was always quickly forthcoming and I hope that he felt I was the same. While Scotty had great insight into the local development of the Philippine culture and cultures he was not always fully correct. While he was fully correct in denigrating Beyer’s wave theory of the populating of the Philippines, usually in kindly language (Scott: 1994:10-11), at time he overdid this. Isabelo de los Reyes was obviously a hero to Scotty, and from his presentation of much of his hero’s life and work I would agree with him. He quotes de los Reyes on the origin of the Filipinos (Scott 1982:273-275) as all Filipinos being of one “race” and that “… there is no definite proof that the Aetas were the Aborigines of the Archipelago, though it is possible that they were…”. Both of these statements are more correct than incorrect in today’s understanding, in that anthropologists no longer accept the concept of “race” and the qualification that the Aetas may have been the aborigines in the Philippines is not necessary. Scotty (1982:275-276) then points out correctly that Montano and Blumentritt had proposed this long before Beyer and goes on to say: “But Montano and Blumentritt won out in the end. A new colonial regime not only revived their racist theory but expanded it into a full dozen waves washing migrants up on Philippine shores, each one superior to the one that preceded it. Accepted as comforting fact by the American authorities, it was incorporated into the Philippine school system where it has been lovingly preserved by Filipino educators who are persuaded their own ancestors came in the last wave”. Scotty does not mention Beyer’s name here, but is obviously referring to Beyer’s presentation of this theory. Neither Beyer nor the ‘new colonial regime’ revived this ‘racist theory’. I would like to emphasize that Beyer was not the first to present this with reference to the Philippine population. Further he was only repeating the generally accepted theory of culture change at the time he was studying anthropology at Harvard in 1909 that all culture change was due to either diffusion or migration. Virtually every educated person at that time, and for quite some time thereafter anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians as well, accepted that “waves of migration” were of major importance in bringing about the many different cultures, often considered as distinct ethnic groups, for the world as a whole (Trigger 1989:124, 150-151). This was not a conspiracy on the part of Beyer and the American regime, it was the educators and the Philippine school system that continues this fallacy long after it had been discredited by archaeologists working in the Philippines. My wife Ludy and I visited him in either 1982 or 1983 in Sagada. We were in the Philippines both years for several months but I do not recall which year we visited Sagada and Banaue. I was impressed with the pleasant arrangements he had been able to make to continue his research there during his retirement. I realize that all of the papers being presented at this conference are dedicated to William Henry Scott, but even so I would like to make the statement that “I dedicate this endeavor to his memory”. INTRODUCTION The request given to me by the organizing committee of this lecture was for a paper on the Prehistory of Southeast Asia. Trying to cover this vast area in an hour, a day, or even a week is just too much. Perhaps I should first define what I consider Southeast Asia for purposes of prehistory. Southeast Asia includes the Yangtze Valley of South China on the north. It includes much of eastern India previous to say 500 B.C., but certainly the old state called Assam in the northeast of India to Viet Nam on the east, and all of the islands off the coast of this area including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands on the west and Hainan in China, Taiwan and the November 1999 50 Hukay vol. 2 no. 1 Philippines on the east. This large area I divide into two regions, Mainland Southeast Asia and Island Southeast Asia. I capitalize all the words in these two titles as “Mainland” and “Island” are not used as adjectives but are part of the titles for real, cultural, prehistoric regions, not imaginary or artificial. I will focus primarily on the prehistory of the Philippines in relationships to that of Taiwan, South China, Viet Nam and Indonesia. This does not mean that there was no contact with the other countries of Southeast Asia, but that these neighboring countries were the ones most closely involved with the Philippines in their shared prehistory. THE PREHISTORY OF EASTERN SOUTHEAST ASIA There were hominids, Homo erectus (the ancestors of Homo sapiens), in central Java over one million six hundred thousand years ago.